(May 22) - The accusation by Rene Kosirnik, head of the International Red Cross's delegation to Israel and the territories, that settlements are "war crimes" at a time when Palestinian gunners and suicide bombers are targeting civilians is a moral outrage.

But Kosirnik's condemnations of settlements as "illegal" according to international law are not new. They rely solely on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, drawn up a few years after the end of the Second World War, which states: "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country... are prohibitedÉ The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the recognized authority on the Geneva Convention, this applies to what it calls "Israel's occupation of the West Bank." But there was no court; the ICRC was judge and jury.

This decision, taken originally by the ICRC in the early 1970s and confirmed every year since, has been the basis for opposition to Israeli "occupation" and "settlement." But these decisions, unlike legal opinions on any other issues, are made in secret, without any form of due process.

Those who made the decision and the procedures by which they arrived at their conclusions are "confidential." Every attempt I made to obtain more detailed information was rejected. So much for democracy and judicial fairness.

In fact, Israel has not occupied territory belonging to another state. Jordan's occupation of Judea and Samaria, like Egypt's occupation of the Gaza Strip, was invalid under international law; only Britain and Pakistan recognized it.

Previously, the entire area of Palestine was under the British Mandate.

Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that it applies "to cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a high contracting party." Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were not the territory of a high contracting party. It has no relevance in this case.

Many governments, including the US, refer to the territories as "disputed," rather than "illegal." The Fourth Geneva Convention was intended to protect innocent and defenseless local populations from displacement, or threats to their existence, as was the case in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland before and during World War II. This is obviously not the case in the "territories," where Palestinian terrorists and gunmen regularly attack Israelis and murder their own people as well.

Few Arabs were displaced from their homes and lands by virtue of the Six Day War in 1967. Property rights of Arabs are respected and protected by Israeli courts.

Jews who moved to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza did so voluntarily, in some cases to property which was lost during Israel's War of Independence in 1948-49, or before, as a result of Arab riots.

Many settlements were established on sites which have deep historic and religious meaning in Jewish history. Others, like Gush Etzion were built on property that had once been owned by Jews. In other instances, settlements were established on public (state) land, which was not privately owned, and on land purchased from Arab owners.

As a result of Jewish settlement, the living standards and economic position of the local Arab population improved dramatically. Jews and Arabs worked together and both were rewarded. Perhaps that cooperation was precisely why it was perceived as such a threat by the current Palestinian leadership. It was not that things were not working out; it was that they were. Settlements were not an obstacle to peace, but to demonic political ambitions, corruption, greed and jihad.

Although the ICRC has done good work, its history with relation to Jews is nothing to be proud of. During World War II, it was reluctant to investigate concentration camps, massacres, brutality and human-rights abuses. When it did visit some of the camps, its reports whitewashed Nazi atrocities.

After the war, the Red Cross was a major conduit for high-ranking Nazis to escape Europe. The Red Cross provided false passports, for example, to the commandants of Treblinka and Sobibor concentration camps, and enabled Alois Brunner, Eichmann's assistant, to escape to Damascus.

During the war, the Red Cross failed miserably to help POWs and inmates of concentration camps.

Worst of all was its silence. They knew it all and they said nothing.

Even today, the ICRC continues to reject the symbol of the Magen David Adom as part of its humanitarian effort. Red Crescent facilities and vehicles are used in attacks against Jews, and the ICRC is silent. This demonstrates ICRC's consistent and determined bias, which undermines its claim to impartiality. Theirs is a shameful past and a dishonest present.

(The author is a Jerusalem-based writer and former assistant professor of history at CUNY.)